Indian Military Aviation

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Apr 2010 23:20

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Apr 2010 00:27

Kartik wrote: Considering how deep this upgrade is, these Mirages will be able to take on even PAF's newest acquisitions, the F-16 Block 50s.

Kartik is it possible because of RDY2 Radar or MICA being better then PAF F-16s BVR missiles?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 07 Apr 2010 10:23

Livefist has photos of the new air-base inaugaration at Phalodi, Rajasthan

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 749601.jpg

This shows a jag with a radome. Either, this means that this is a Jag IM landing in the middle of the desert!!

OR, it means that this is the DARIN III upgraded Jag with an ELTA-2032 (?) in the nose.

Which is it? Can we figure out squadron markings and/or serial no.? (I cant!)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Apr 2010 11:28

Dmurphy wrote:Per <wikimapia>, its not that close either

Kakarat wrote:I thought it was this one

This base is at a center of a triangle formed by Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Bikaner.
It is located at: 27° 6'50.62"N 72°23'17.25"E

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Apr 2010 11:57

K_Rohit wrote:Livefist has photos of the new air-base inaugaration at Phalodi, Rajasthan

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 749601.jpg

This shows a jag with a radome. Either, this means that this is a Jag IM landing in the middle of the desert!!

OR, it means that this is the DARIN III upgraded Jag with an ELTA-2032 (?) in the nose.

Which is it? Can we figure out squadron markings and/or serial no.? (I cant!)

good catch rohit, the serial no is 256, it's on the front wheel door. which I think is possibly an IM since 255 is one.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 6.jpg.html

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Apr 2010 12:02

{drain inspector alert}

in airstrips like the above, how high is the probability of FOD? the picture shows mounds of earth (i presume) being heaped on the sides of the runway. Sure they're not right at the edge of the landing strip but even if they are a fair distance off, winds can cause enough of a problem. how is this tackled?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Apr 2010 12:14

I think its just temporary - soil will be kept hard packed, debris removed and potentially some desert grasses planted to bind the top soil together.

Nellis which is in middle of a desert seems to operate fine with 100s of takeoffs a day sometimes.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Apr 2010 12:34

Singha wrote:rahim yar khan. a town on the indus in central pakistan.

Guderian and Von Kleist in charge

A plan which while having being shelved for a time is now (Possibly )being re thought of by the IAF. The base should also be able to support a cold start push by the army in that sector.

All in all increasing the options for the Indian Military.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Apr 2010 12:42

there is a big PAF exercise called high mark ongoing. footage on tv showed a bunch of generals watching as a MirageIII drops a durandal type retarded bomb (Hafr?) which deploys a drag chute and then fires a rocket to hit the target with a huge blast.

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Apr 2010 13:32

Singha wrote:there is a big PAF exercise called high mark ongoing. footage on tv showed a bunch of generals watching as a MirageIII drops a durandal type retarded bomb (Hafr?) which deploys a drag chute and then fires a rocket to hit the target with a huge blast.

This is supposed to be the 60 day( !!!) excercise involving all the forces.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 08 Apr 2010 00:40

Vayu shakti 2010 - Indian Air Force Fire Power and Combat Capability

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Apr 2010 03:55

K_Rohit wrote:Livefist has photos of the new air-base inaugaration at Phalodi, Rajasthan

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 749601.jpg

This shows a jag with a radome. Either, this means that this is a Jag IM landing in the middle of the desert!!

OR, it means that this is the DARIN III upgraded Jag with an ELTA-2032 (?) in the nose.

Which is it? Can we figure out squadron markings and/or serial no.? (I cant!)

Its a Jag IM. They are operated by No.6 Dragons who were relocated to Jamnagar in Saurashtra, Gujarat from their Pune airbase, and from there they must've been flown to Phalodi, Rajasthan.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 08 Apr 2010 04:14

'Upgrade Mirages Rather Than Buying New Aircraft'

Air Chief Marshal P V Naik today said that upgrading old Mirage fighter aircraft is a better option than buying new fighter planes.

When asked why Air Force was spending millions of dollars in upgrading old Mirages as the money could well be used in buying new Sukhois, Naik said, "When you buy an (fighter) aircraft it is not only the aircraft that you buy, you spend money in training people, erecting infrastructure, logistics, spares supply and life time support."

"The residual life of the 50 odd Mirages that are left is another 20 years. If I throw them away I have wasted 20 years of that residual life. But upgrading them, with the infrastructure already available, seems a better option, considering the life time cost," he added.

.........................

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Apr 2010 05:06

Craig Alpert wrote:
"Air Marshal P V Naik today said that upgrading old Mirage fighter aircraft is a better option than buying new fighter planes.

When asked why Air Force was spending millions of dollars in upgrading old Mirages as the money could well be used in buying new Sukhois, Naik said, "When you buy an (fighter) aircraft it is not only the aircraft that you buy, you spend money in training people, erecting infrastructure, logistics, spares supply and life time support."

"The residual life of the 50 odd Mirages that are left is another 20 years. If I throw them away I have wasted 20 years of that residual life. But upgrading them, with the infrastructure already available, seems a better option, considering the life time cost," he added."

.........................

All points that I've been stressing for a long time in defence on the Mirage-2000 upgrade deal. India set up the infrastructure to support 150 Mirages at the Maharajpur AFS because it was believed that more would be bought. The financial crunch of the early 90s ensured that none of that happened, but there is plenty of infrastructure, training, maintenance and overhaul facilities already set up for the Mirage-2000 in India.

besides that, its a fabulous aircraft. With this upgrade giving it new eyes, ears and teeth, this predator will be back in the fore-front of the IAF's armoury.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Apr 2010 05:12

This was originally posted by a poster named "Teer" on Keypub forum. simply cross posting with credit to him.

Anyways, there is another interesting thing I came across. Thales had originally pitched a downgraded/reduced cost Mirage 2000 upgrade to the IAF with the RC400 radar. The RC400 was stated to be lesser than the RDY radar range, but much lesser cost. Rest of the stuff was standard, MDPU, full LCD display etc.
Found this link which backs it up.
article link

Given the costs involved, its fairly apparent that the news that the IAF had asked for the full Mirage 2000-5/-9 derived upgrade instead was true, and hence the haggling. Also rubbishes those Defense News claims of IAI involvement. Given mention of only Thales, MBDA and HAL, the EW system is also likely to be the ICMS Mk2 and not the Italian one on the UAE Mirages.

Also, the IAF Mirage upgrade will get them all HMDS as well. I'd say the Thales Topsight.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Apr 2010 05:13

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Kartik wrote: Considering how deep this upgrade is, these Mirages will be able to take on even PAF's newest acquisitions, the F-16 Block 50s.
Kartik is it possible because of RDY2 Radar or MICA being better then PAF F-16s BVR missiles?

Kartik I asked question to you few posts back, I think you missed it. Would be nice if you will answer

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Apr 2010 10:42

Manish_Sharma wrote: Kartik I asked question to you few posts back, I think you missed it. Would be nice if you will answer

Hi Manish. Sorry I didn't see it earlier. If you go through this great article you'll find answers to all your questions on why a Mirage-2000H upgraded to Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 levels will be deadly. In every way, its on par with the F-16 Block 52+ Advanced that the PAF is now acquiring.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Apr 2010 11:30

A wonderful site with pics of Russia's inflatable decoys.See these great Flanker decoys.ideal for our air bases! In fact,decoys is just one excellent opprtunity for our PSUs to engage in and save a lot of forex.The Serbs tricked NATO very well during the Balkans conflict and in Kosovo,where NATO air strikes attacked everything but Serb armour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... tures.html

Any enemy surveillance of this site would result in the conclusion that it was a heavily-fortified area, with fighter planes ready to scramble at any moment. But look closer...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 08 Apr 2010 13:18

Singha wrote:rahim yar khan. a town on the indus in central pakistan.

in the old (non nukular) days of unrestricted depth war, RYK was expected to be the point where
two giant armoured pincers from north and south would meet on the Indus and effectively cut
all the N-S indus valley highway and railway network. an attack by two strike corps as the outer prongs and regular slower (rapid) corps as the inner prongs....kind of the like the double envelopments by the wehrmacht "army group center" from polish border ending at Smolensk and from Smolensk to Moscow.

parachute brigade to threaten enemy strongpoints from rear as the armour prongs advance.

Guderian and Von Kleist in charge

Heh, I always wonder why people dont more often study the actions of Zhukov, Koniev, Roksossvskiy, and Vatutin, considering that they beat the everliving TAR out of the notables mentioned above!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Apr 2010 13:32

Posting from Keypubs - Courtesy Krammer

IAF view regarding PAF landing and taking off using Highway

IAF officer's comments on the recent "road landing" by PAF Mirage and F-7 fighters. When you look at what the Gripen can do, then you realise what the Dispersed Base Operations concept used by the Flygvapnet for decades really means in terms of flexibility and aircraft design to allow for such extreme STOL operations. And in that Samaa TV report from Pakistan, they kept referring to the Mirages as "Meraj".. DDMitis

Quote:
StratPost
April 2, 2010
By Saurabh Joshi

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) today claimed to have landed two of its fighter aircraft on a public road, taking-off again, after refueling and rearming. The Associated Press of Pakistan said the PAF ’successfully validated its concept of fighter operations from the motorways and highways when its two fighter aircraft landed at a point on motorway’.

Samaa TV reported that the aircraft in question were the Meraj (sic) and the F-7P (Chinese version of the MiG-21). From the photograph carried, the Meraj looks like a Mirage III or possibly its later variant, the Mirage 5.

Image: Samaa TV

The report also says ‘9,000 feet (2743.2 meters) long and 103 feet (31.3944 meters) wide piece of Islamabad-Lahore motorway was used as runway’ also adding, ‘blocks dividing the motorway were removed and tops of trees grown on an area of 3,000 ft on both sides of motorway were trimmed’.

While this may appear to be of use for the PAF in times of emergency, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is not very impressed.

“They’ve converted the road into an airfield and are using the length of a normal runway. What’s the big deal about landing and taking off from that?” asks one IAF officer. “In any case,” he explains, “IAF pilots train for landing and taking from Parallel Taxi Tracks that are around 75 feet wide – half the width of a normal runway.

Edvard de la Motte, former Head of Design, Saab Military Aircraft and now a Director at Gripen puts things into perspective. He says that because of its Electrical Flight Control system, the Gripen can land and take-off on a strip with a length of 800 meters (2625 feet) and a width of 9 meters (30 feet). “The earlier Saab aircraft, the Viggen and the Draken were also designed to operate from public roads with a length of 800 meters and a width of 17 meters (56 feet),” says de la Motte.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2010 13:39

30 feet is pretty tricky. full points to gripen if it does that safely.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2010 13:43

I always wonder why people dont more often study the actions of Zhukov, Koniev, Roksossvskiy, and Vatutin

who says we dont ? legendary operations like bagration, uranus, citadel, rokosowsky's
march through baltics and poland must be part and parcel of any military students course.

but its also true the wehrmacht had some equally high caliber generals like rommel,
guderian, von kliest etc who were sometimes led down in overall terms by the high command and hitlers micromanagement as well as less resources.

the americans had some good generals.

the british didnt have too many imo.

wiki:
Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist
8 August 1881(1881-08-08) – 13 November 1954 (aged 73)
Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1986-0210-503, General Ewald von Kleist.jpg
Generalfeldmarshall Ewald von Kleist (1940)
Place of birth Braunfels an der Lahn
Place of death Camp Wladimirowka, Russia
Allegiance German Empire German Empire (to 1918)
Germany Weimar Republic (to 1933)
Nazi Germany Nazi Germany
Service/branch Heer
Years of service 1900–1938; 1939–1944
Rank Generalfeldmarschall
Commands held XXII.Armeekorps, Panzergruppe von Kleist, 1st Panzergruppe, 1st Panzer Army, Army Group A
Battles/wars World War I

World War II
Awards Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords

Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist (August 8, 1881 – c. November 13, 1954) was a leading German field marshal during World War II.

Born in Braunfels an der Lahn into an aristocratic family, Kleist was educated in a German military school and graduated in 1900. He served as a lieutenant of hussars and a regimental commander in World War I. After the war he served as a commander of a cavalry division from 1932-35.

Kleist was semi-retired when, in August 1939, he was recalled to active duty at the age of fifty-eight.

In the invasion of Poland, Kleist commanded the XXII Panzer Corps. In the Battle of France he commanded Panzergruppe von Kleist, consisting of XLI Panzer Corps and XIX Panzer Corps (under Heinz Guderian), the two southernmost armoured corps in the drive to the English Channel. During this time he attempted to relieve Guderian of his command after he and his subordinate, Erwin Rommel, disobeyed orders to halt their advance to the Channel; the Wehrmacht Chief of Staff, Gerd von Rundstedt, refused to confirm the order, and the Franco-British armies were trapped.

In April 1941, Kleist commanded 1st Panzergruppe, comprising XVIII and XL Panzer Corps, which spearheaded the Blitzkrieg-style invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece. With this formation he also participated in the subsequent Operation Barbarossa as part of Army Group South.

In 1942 Kleist was sent to command troops in the Caucasus in order to capture important oil wells in the area. On 22 November 1942, he was placed in command of Army Group A. He was promoted to field marshal in 1943. He was relieved of his command in March 1944 for ordering the 8th Army to retreat when it was in danger of destruction by the Soviet Red Army, in explicit violation of Adolf Hitler's orders.

Kleist was captured by United States forces in 1945. He was sent to communist Yugoslavia to face alleged war crimes charges in 1946. In 1948 he was then extradited to the Soviet Union where he was condemned to a 10-years sentence in 1952 for war crimes and he died in captivity in Vladimir Prison in 1954. He was the highest ranked German officer to die in Soviet captivity. Of note is the fact that Kleist was charged, among other things, with "alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union" as described in the book "Hitler's Generals" by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr. (2003).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Apr 2010 14:16

ASPuar wrote: Heh, I always wonder why people dont more often study the actions of Zhukov, Koniev, Roksossvskiy, and Vatutin, considering that they beat the everliving TAR out of the notables mentioned above!

Not so fast, my dear...it was the Allied industrial production that beat the German Army. These worthies and their Tank and Shock Armies were getting their musharraf's handed to them right upto 1943; While not taking away anything from them, there are no two ways about the fact that they started winning when German Armored Divisions reached a stage where they were absymaly low on numbers in terms of tanks and were mere shadows of their former self....It was not before end of 1943 and thence, that the Soviet commanders mastered the 'Operational Art' and how to manage their large mechanized forces...

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Apr 2010 14:22

Kartik wrote:Hi Manish. Sorry I didn't see it earlier. If you go through this great article you'll find answers to all your questions on why a Mirage-2000H upgraded to Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 levels will be deadly. In every way, its on par with the F-16 Block 52+ Advanced that the PAF is now acquiring.

Thanks Kartik

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2010 14:45

but wont the F16-52 in A2A config have a better T:W ratio ? infact most of the late teens and 4+ types would have better T:W than the P53 powered M2K and there is no "higher thrust" version of P53.

M2k would do best to avoid close range fights with F-solah unless operating from a
position of strength in numbers/SA/missiles imho.

the higher and faster it is , the lower wing loading and higher sprint speed of the M2K should make it count.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 08 Apr 2010 15:33

Kartik wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote: Kartik I asked question to you few posts back, I think you missed it. Would be nice if you will answer
Hi Manish. Sorry I didn't see it earlier. If you go through this great article you'll find answers to all your questions on why a Mirage-2000H upgraded to Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 levels will be deadly. In every way, its on par with the F-16 Block 52+ Advanced that the PAF is now acquiring.

Kartik, thanks a lot for that link - very good data point!!

Now quoting my earlier post:

maitya wrote:Quite a bit has been written about this M2K upgrade, but have not seen a single site/news-item/report that chronicles the exact subsystems being made part of this upagrade (I used to have a a few bits of nuggets in my HDD, before it crashed ).

However there's has been some confirmatory comments like,
“Under the upgrade, the entire airframe will be stripped down to be re-wired and re-equipped with new avionics, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites and of course weapon systems to extend and enhance the operational life of the multi-role fighters.”
but never a comprehensive list of the subsystems that is being made part of this upgrade.

So here's another attempt:
1) Radar - RDY MK2
2) New Missile system - MICA (including IR version)
3) Countermeasure - Integrated countermeasures system (ICMS) Mk4 from Thomson-CSF
4) Navigation - Sextant Avionique’s Totem 3000 ring laser gyro INS
5) Datalink - Joint tactical information data link system (JTIDS)
6) HMS - Topsight E helmet-mounted sight/display
7) Cockpit Display and MC - Rafale's MDPU
8 ) A brand new 1553 digibus

But nothing really new to the AG capability - IAF seems to be happy with their Litening-II pods.

Also no confirmation on,
1) any active or passive MAWS - atleast DDM-SAMIR/DDM-NG type IR based system
2) any internal SPJ
3) no IRST system (this is confirmed)

So, prima facie, this French-Indian consortium including Dassault (aircraft manufacturer), Thales (weapons systems integrator), MBDA (missiles) and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited based upgrade is a very very comprehensive upgrade (specially on the AA areas).

Now, my pet peeve - is it still worth $40mil/aircraft upgrade?

Only time will tell I guess!!

Regarding confirmation on
1) passive MAWS - from the above article posted by Kartik

The ICMS includes three radar warning receivers of the instantaneous wideband and super-heterodyne types
<snip>
They are complemented by two passive infrared receivers to detect missile launch plumes.

But still no confirmation on DDM-SAMIR/DDM-NG type subsystem which not only would detect the missile launch but also track it during the propulsion phase.

2) any internal SPJ - from the above article posted by Kartik

The French Air Force has preferred to keep the self-protection system already employed on the Mirage 2000 DA.
<snip>
... comprises a Serval radar warning detector, a Sabre jammer and Spirale decoy launchers

So ICMS-Mk4 will surely include an internal SPJ and alongwith an integrated RWR and chaff-flare dispensers.

Some more information on Sabre ...

Modular high performance ESM and jamming system covering 0.5 – 18 GHz (option to 40 GHz). Automatically identifies and tracks emitters. Uses a phased-array transmitter with high ERP, interoperable with phased-array radars. Steerable antenna has polarisation control. Jammer uses advanced DRFM-based techniques generator plus a wide range of noise and deception techniques. Accuracy 2 deg RMS. Sensitivity -60 dBm. Dynamic range 60 dB. Processing time <1 s. Jammer offers diverse modes over 7.5 – 18 GHz using phased array and steerable antennas.

Thales Aerospace Division
Source Electronic Warfare - Handbook 2008

Good!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Apr 2010 16:17

How many men did some of those Generals hurl in the furnace?

That also counts.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 08 Apr 2010 18:51

IAF chief not for using air power against Naxals

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 391268.ece

The chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik, said on Wednesday that he was not in favour of using air power against Naxalites.

In a brief chat with journalists here, Air Chief Marshal Naik said it was up to the State governments concerned to assess the situation and decide on using air power in the anti-Naxal operations, but “I am not in favour of it.”

He said the Army, the Navy and the Air Force were trained for inflicting maximum lethality. “Our training and weapons are meant for enemies across the border and to inflict maximum lethality on them.”{Minimum lethality for Maoist terrorists onlee. Why is this sympathy towards brutal murderers?}

Pointing out that the Naxalites were the country's citizens,

{yes, each Maoists are law abiding citizens of this country and carry two ration card. Hence citizens of this country whereas the others who get killed by these terrorists are not since they may or not have a ration card.} Air Chief Marshal Naik constructed a scenario, if the Air Force was called in. “Let us say the Air Force is called in. and it needs to fire a rocket. A rocket has to be fired from a minimum distance of 1,500-1,800 metres. From that distance, we are not able to visualize what exactly the target is.” {be are not calling air power where there are no Maoists. Atleast when you detect a large grouping of Mao's cadres in the jungle then? Also what about the Gatling gun? What about UAV's to provide intelligence? What about COMINT?}

“Unless we are 120 per cent sure that the Naxals are the country's enemies,{

be are not sure that the Maoists are countries enemy?. He must be immediately replaced with someone who got brains.} it will not be fair to use the Air Force within our borders,” he said.{Why? If it is saving an innocent life, then is it correct to eliminate a Maovadi or not?}

For the moment, he said, the paramilitary forces must meet the challenge. The paramilitary forces are … “slowly being equipped. They also have intelligence to undertake such operations.”{Yes, the paramilitary will do their part. Now how can you contribute in eliminating this Mao vadis?}

However, it was up to the government to decide whether the Air Force should be used or not. And the Air Force would join the anti-Naxal operations, if the government desired. {Yes and the govt will expect you to provide with suitable strategy to use airpower against the naxals. Now stop providing ideology and start providing some strategy}

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Apr 2010 20:15

There are two issues with this "Naxal" problem (OT here granted). The one that Naik is referring to is the one that is related to economics/sociology/politics and not ideology. This problem is very old - at least from the 60s. IF IAF is expected to come up with strategies then they should also do that against those that cause this "Naxal" problem. BTW, the emergency declared in the mid-70s was directed towards the commie ideologists. IAF need not get involved when there is a political/social solution - and there has always been one.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Apr 2010 22:23

Singha wrote:but wont the F16-52 in A2A config have a better T:W ratio ? infact most of the late teens and 4+ types would have better T:W than the P53 powered M2K and there is no "higher thrust" version of P53.

M2k would do best to avoid close range fights with F-solah unless operating from a
position of strength in numbers/SA/missiles imho.

the higher and faster it is , the lower wing loading and higher sprint speed of the M2K should make it count.

yes its a known disadvantage for the French that they simply couldn't keep coming up with newer engines as their fighters got new variants. But then, the Mirage-2000-5 will still maintain a TWR of 1 or more in the air-defence configuration.

As it stands, the Mirage's tactics always were slash and run. the initial merge would be where the Mirage had adequate energy to turn heavily into the F-16 and its high instantaneous turn rates would be a factor there and you could use afterburner to keep a sustained turn going. And it is more nimble at high altitudes than a F-16.

HOBS missiles like the ASRAAM (the likely WVR weapon that we'll get, if not the MICA IR) with (likely Thales Topsight) HMDS means that in close combat a Mirage is just as likely to get that first shot as the PAF F-16 Block 52+ with AIM-9M and JHMCS.

the Mirage's sustained turn rates would be poorer, which is why no Mirage pilot will engage in a turning contest with a F-16 or a MiG-29, but in these days of HOBS/HMDS, unless the pilot has no WVR missiles left on his pylons, its unlikely that they will get embroiled in a turning contest. If they do, any experienced Mirage pilot will know when to get out of the fight.

In BVR, the MICA EM/IR and RDY-2 combo make for a very deadly combination. Its capabilities as mentioned below gives a fair idea of why the PAF was interested in the RC-400 (a poorer cousin of the RDY-2) for the JF-17 Bandar.

With an average power of 800 watts, obtained by pairing two travelling-wave tubes, and a range estimated at 70NM (130 km) in air-to-air mode, the RDY in pure performance terms equals and exceeds American radars of the same generation (the F-16's APG-68 and the F-15's APG-70).

The RDY also stands out due to its four-channel antenna and receiver. The antenna comprises four quadrants. The signals sensed by these quadrants are directed into one "sum" and two "difference" channels, to allow off-boresight measurements around the antenna centreline. The fourth channel, the so-called "secondary" channel, is used for suppressing the side lobes. This architecture ensures a triple advantage: more-precise target tracking, a very favourable false-alarm rate, and improved resistance to jamming

Thanks to a very low false-alarm rate, the RDY ensures sure-fire detection and is capable of switching to tracking mode after two antenna sweeps over the relative bearing of a target with, as a bonus (thanks to the off-boresight measurement feature), an elevation component. Such performance is rarely attained by competing US radars which, between the detection and track while scan (TWS) functions, offer an intermediate RWS (Range While Search) mode, often necessitating pilot input in order to switch to tracking.

The processing capacity of the RDY is eight-track simultaneous TWS, like its American counterparts. However, in the case of the RDY, this capacity is genuinely available to the pilot, since the tracks are positioned automatically. Once the track-while-scan mode is engaged, the radar evaluates the threat represented by each track (according to its range and speed), in order to produce a firing scenario for the pilot. For the four tracks with the highest threat priority, antenna scanning is configured automatically to avoid losing these tracks in the event of evasive manoeuvres or closing, which could move them out of the angular detection field.

The RDY combines the three types of waveforms known for combat-aircraft radars: HPRF, MPRF and LPRF (high, medium and low pulse-repetition frequencies), to ensure homogeneous performance levels irrespective of the target presentation angle.

The designers have taken advantage of the intrinsic detection qualities of the RDY to progressively add numerous operating modes, thus making the radar the first genuine multi-mission radar produced in France.

After ten years of service, the radar has been renamed RDY-2 and provided with newer and more sensitive microwave receivers. Apart from a substantial increase in maximum range, Thales has also managed to provide newer and better air-to-ground modes (for the Mirage 2000-9 variant). Also worthy of mention are the Doppler beam sharpening (DBS) and synthetic aperture (SAR) modes. These two modes employ the aircraft's own speed to integrate the echoes returned by the ground for a varying period, to allow generating of a high-resolution fixed image. They are only effective in angular sectors offset from the aircraft centreline.

The DBS mode operates for an antenna setting 15-50 [degrees] off the aircraft's centreline and provides a resolution on the order of 15 metres. It is employed for updating navigation data, and for target recognition and designation for the air-to-ground armament. In the SAR mode, the antenna is locked 60 [degrees] off the aircraft centreline and the resolution drops below one metre.

This mode, which is fully independent of the DBS mode, will give the Mirage 2000-9 a certain level of all-weather reconnaissance capability.

the DBS mode clearly is not the best with a resolution of 15 meters. Cannot be used to target individual targets that are small, but for larger sized immobile targets it should be good enough. SAR mode resolution at 1 meter is much better.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Apr 2010 22:28

uddu wrote:IAF chief not for using air power against Naxals
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 391268.ece

The chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik, said on Wednesday that he was not in favour of using air power against Naxalites.

uddu ji,

The Services are unaniminous in their opinion that the Armed forces not be used for internal disturbances.

There are numerous other options. Use them.

Is the Army meant for digging people out of borewells?

Some excess rain in Bangalore and idiots want the Army out. What is the muncipal corporation, fire brigade, police, State police, Armed reserve police, CRPF, BSF and numerous other CPOs doing?

Guarding some bloody IT companies???

Look at reliance they train, staff and guard their own refinery. Local police is not even allowed within miles of the place. Man power is free for other duties.

infosys has three billion $$$$$ in cash reserves but they still sponge off the govt for security? Why don't all these richie rich companies go the sensible reliance way.?

Law and order is a STATE subject. Let the states coordinate and handle it.

When the CPM, kangress, soren and his idiotic gang and many others of his ilk openly support the maoists, why drag in the Army? The maoists have been encouraged, fed, nurtured and funded by politicians.

You have IAS and IPS officers in very dubious anti Indian NGOs. They are your real enemies. They support and provide over ground services for the maoists.

Intellectuals????!!!!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 08 Apr 2010 23:27

uddu wrote:IAF chief not for using air power against Naxals
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 391268.ece

uddu-ji

I agree with Chetak-ji. We are not Pakis to bomb our own people. Transport/Recon is okay, but no assault from the air!!

I think that there are 2 very valid reasons for this

1. Using air power to bomb naxals is just a pathetic excuse for not raising and training an effective police force and also for not digging out and using the framework of law to punish all netas/babus/mafia/"intelligensia" itayadi who are hand in glove with the naxals. Okay so you thow a few bombs at them - then what? Naxals are symptoms of the rot and not the cause.

2. The armed forces have no official and structural say in decision making and are unable to raise these points in a closed room. Hence they have to resort to the media. If they had a say in decision making and inside a closed room they can point out that (a) The armed forces are not the police (b) They are not trained/raised to undertake what is essentially a police action.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Apr 2010 02:08

Kartik wrote: the Mirage's sustained turn rates would be poorer, which is why no Mirage pilot will engage in a turning contest with a F-16 or a MiG-29, but in these days of HOBS/HMDS, unless the pilot has no WVR missiles left on his pylons, its unlikely that they will get embroiled in a turning contest. If they do, any experienced Mirage pilot will know when to get out of the fight.

I've never quite understood why the F-16 is supposed to have a better sustained turn rate then the Mirage-2k. I agree that the Mirage's tailless delta design would probably create higher induced drag which would cause it to bleed off energy during high speed turns. But the F-16 Block 30's wing loading is 88 lb/ft^2 while that of the Mirage-2k is 69 lb/ft^2. With the added weight of conformal fuel tanks and other systems in the Block 50/52 the wing loading would be even higher wouldn't it? So would that not have a detrimental effect on sustained turn performance of the F-16 (while probably improving its instantaneous turn rate)? My knowledge of aerodynamics doesn't go beyond wikipedia so please help me out here.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Apr 2010 04:39

nachiket wrote:
I've never quite understood why the F-16 is supposed to have a better sustained turn rate then the Mirage-2k. I agree that the Mirage's tailless delta design would probably create higher induced drag which would cause it to bleed off energy during high speed turns. But the F-16 Block 30's wing loading is 88 lb/ft^2 while that of the Mirage-2k is 69 lb/ft^2. With the added weight of conformal fuel tanks and other systems in the Block 50/52 the wing loading would be even higher wouldn't it? So would that not have a detrimental effect on sustained turn performance of the F-16 (while probably improving its instantaneous turn rate)? My knowledge of aerodynamics doesn't go beyond wikipedia so please help me out here.

Your information is in place Nachiket. In the Mirage, you just have one thing (wing loading) going for you and the other (a complete delta wing and lower TWR) going against. It's just that which one is stronger in the turning case. The problem is that as you lose energy (i.e. K.E. and thus velocity), your lift goes down further, and one would lose altitude. That is a very unfavorable condition if you have your enemy at your tail! You need your engine to keep pushing you through the turn against the much increased drag (which is even more for a complete delta like that on a Mirage). That is where your TWR also comes into equation (F-16 has more). So turning leveled ( or as close to it ) is actually turning and climbing!

But you are right if a F-16 and and Mirage start a turn at the same speed and without using additional thrust, the Mirage will be able to turn more effortless, but at the exit, it will be at a lower altitude than the F-16!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Apr 2010 05:32

How often (expected?)(%age wise) would planes now-a-days get into a dog fight? With tons pf BVR/radars with all sorts of capabilities/etc I would think it would be fairly low. There would be some situations, but how often?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Apr 2010 05:39

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote: the Mirage's sustained turn rates would be poorer, which is why no Mirage pilot will engage in a turning contest with a F-16 or a MiG-29, but in these days of HOBS/HMDS, unless the pilot has no WVR missiles left on his pylons, its unlikely that they will get embroiled in a turning contest. If they do, any experienced Mirage pilot will know when to get out of the fight.

I've never quite understood why the F-16 is supposed to have a better sustained turn rate then the Mirage-2k. I agree that the Mirage's tailless delta design would probably create higher induced drag which would cause it to bleed off energy during high speed turns. But the F-16 Block 30's wing loading is 88 lb/ft^2 while that of the Mirage-2k is 69 lb/ft^2. With the added weight of conformal fuel tanks and other systems in the Block 50/52 the wing loading would be even higher wouldn't it? So would that not have a detrimental effect on sustained turn performance of the F-16 (while probably improving its instantaneous turn rate)? My knowledge of aerodynamics doesn't go beyond wikipedia so please help me out here.

Apart from the inability to keep altitude thanks to lower thrust, you have to keep in mind certain other disadvantages - if the M2k has to keep up the turning game, it has to undoubtedly keep up the "burning game" IOWs, it'll wind up using after burner far more thanks to the low thrust, which means low endurance and little options in terms of exit strategy. Not only that but the M53 has really poor SFC as well hampering range/endurance considerably, making even the MiG-29A with such a poor fuel fraction decidedly competitive against it in a turning game!

Also, if you take the blk-50 and the M2k-5 with a similar config (not loading the solah unfairly with the CFTs) - full internal fuel, 6 AAMs; you'll notice that despite the added weight, range/endurance will favor the solah and the TWR even more so. Thus, 9000 + 1000 + 3250 = 13250: 13250kgf thrust (PW-100-229), TW -1) Otoh, M2k-5 with 7600kg+3250kg+800kg = 11000kg: 9800kgf, TWR = 0.89. While low wingloading is essential for lift the solah makes up for it thanks to a far better TWR and don't forget the lifting body design via the LERX.

To sum up - why can't the M2k-5 stay with the solah or fulcrum despite the excellent wingloading?
Distinctly lower TWR

Distinctly higher SFC
poor wingloadig on the solah is compensated with LEX.

The same reasons it couldn't manage against the Su-30Ks in Garuda (Istres). Still, the M2k has excellent nose pointing ability and it is likely it'll get you early iagains lets say an early blk solah since no HMS/HOBs ar available oneither side.
JMT of course
CM

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Apr 2010 06:05

Raosahab,
turning and burning is not restricted to WVR/dogfighting alone; iirc, IAF pilots mentioned that BVR too is a "cat and mouse" game where the ability to turn efficiently is useful to break lock/engagement/exit or reengage.

Re. the M2K-5 upgrade -
I am afraid I am still not too convinced about this deal. I am sure the IAF knows better, but based on open source info, the upgrade seems ridiculously expensive, not when they botched up the Qatari deal for spanking new airframes - there were other options too.

As far as logistics and supply chain are concerned the MKI has a far more extensive set up to warrant 20 extra birds at said price. Ditto with lets say some MiG-29Ms. Another option was to do a less uber upgrade using the Israeli option and invest in a sqd or two of MKIs or fulcrums. Perhaps the airframe might not have gotten 20 extra years, but the newer flankers would have surely lasted a LOT more. And this at a time when they are screaming about depleting strength!

As far as the upg. being extensive, it is hardly any different from other MLUs. In fact, the F-16 as well as fulcrum MLUs are far more extensive resulting in much more payload, fuel and thrust. Ya, the internal SPJ and EW suite is great, but little to suggest it is any more effective than what DRDO+EL-8222 can do. Also, where is the IRST or engine upg?

So what does the IAF know that we don't? Anyone care to speculate? Anything super special about this upg?

CM

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Apr 2010 06:10

So what does the IAF know that we don't? Anyone care to speculate? Anything super special about this upg?

blocking the JF-17 deal ?

that said, the cost of upg for AdlA is also similarly high, I had posted an article in MRCA thread couple of months back.

it's my opinion that after this upg m2k will be used mainly as a self escorting strike platform rather than an air superiority one.

edit: here it is http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... rs&id=3872

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 09 Apr 2010 07:25

Chetakji and Anujanji, what I want to say was that the IAF is not involved in any anti-insurgency operations. It will not be so difficult for them to dedicate a very small portion of their assets including UAV's and Attack helicopters for Anti-Maoists operations. Even though it is better to provide UAV's and Attack helicopters and Dhruv's to CRPF so that they can carry out the air operations on their own and IAF can concentrate on training for war. This is not going to happen. Hence the IAF is required to provide some assistance that can help in eliminating the Maoists menace. The Maoist strength is at its peak and it is said that the 1000's of Maoists that carried out the attack has moved into Orissa. So why not track and target them while they move through the jungle. This must be temporary option until we gain an upper hand. Indeed the only way the total elimination of Maoism is possible with the police force start hunting for Maoists and succeeding whereas the state machinery improving the infrastructure, providing the facilities that the tribal require in that area. Being more Gandhian than Gandhi is not going to help. Just because we are not Pakis never means that we cannot use airpower against Maoists. Also the Pakis who eliminate the whole village with our strategy of eliminating the Maoists cannot be compared. And Maoists are not our people. They can be Paki's people than our people. Until a clear distinction is made between the Tribals (who are our people) and Maoists ideologists (our enemies), we cannot win this war. The ones that roam the jungles threatening the tribals and dictating terms to them need to be hit hard. This can be their base, training centers etc. Also the sympathy must be for our soldiers, policemen who do their duty and get martyred, even show sympathy to those pet dogs that were poisoned to death following Maoists dikats and not to some people who want to kill innocents and grab power. If we don't want to use force, the other option is creation of good village infrastructure for the tribals in those areas and provided medical services etc in the next few months along with a tribal police force to guard against the armed Maoists. For each school or tower blown up, a new one must come up within a fortnight. No state govt or central govt is capable of providing such service with speed to end Maoists influence. They seem to follow the policy of clearing the area and then provide these facilities. Seem like the our experience is going the Paki way. Whether to kill or not to kill an Islamic birather. The next stage for us will be good Maoist and bad Maoists. Arundhati roy is a good maoist or bad maoist? Clue:Kalam onlee.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Apr 2010 08:05

CM turning and twisting was never M2K's forte it is a Mig alley

, but if you noticed how Israelis used their Mirages against more maneuverable Migs you would realise there is more than one way to skin a cat , and in today's age of BVR missiles specially backed by a radar in class of RDY-2 , M2K can give the Blk50/52 a run for its money . Having said that imo it is the AIM 120 C5's in PAF arsenal which have increased their capability by a significant amount .